It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Introducing the Amazing new Penta-lawn 2000

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Tierd of your lawn being destroyed when a plane crashes on it?



Take a look at this amusing take on the Flight 77/Pentagon incident,
it just goes to show you how radiculas the cover up story was.

Penta-lawn 2000




posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Yeah pretty funny how that fire engine in the picture that weighs in at around 49,000 lbs, with all that weight concentrated on only 6 wheels, isn’t tearing it up either, eh?

Guess it is a pretty tough lawn, defiantly capable of supporting a belly slide from the flat, wide, smooth surface of a 757.

This has been cover to death in the Pentagon thread, did you check in there?



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
So what's the answer?
People saw the plane hit the "lawn" but why wasn't there any damage to it?



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   



This has been cover to death in the Pentagon thread, did you check in there?

what this webite? oops sorry if it's been covered, i just thought it was a bit of an alternative and querky view of the subject


How the powers at be can get away with it, is beyond me



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
So what's the answer?
People saw the plane hit the "lawn" but why wasn't there any damage to it?



The people who saw it hit the lawn were obviously government officials pretending to be the guy from down the street


But that lawn is in rather good shape when its all said and done.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamian
what this webite? oops sorry if it's been covered, i just thought it was a bit of an alternative and querky view of the subject


How the powers at be can get away with it, is beyond me


Well not that website specifically, but the subject of why the lawn was not more damaged was in the pentagon thread more then one time.


Originally posted by jupiter869
So what's the answer?
People saw the plane hit the "lawn" but why wasn't there any damage to it?


An airplane is smooth on the bottom and designed to be able to belly slide if the gears fail. The weight is dispersed over a wider area then that truck, by way of example, so there is most likely less pounds per inch in contact then you have on that truck. The truck has all its weight including the water and chemicals it holds concentrated into an area the width of its tires and it’s not even making large ruts in the grass.

Obviously the damage to the grass is going to depend on how soft the dirt below it is. That is why you can run a lawn tractor over your yard on a normal day and not make ruts, but try it after it rains out and you will have a muddy mess. If you look at the pictures from later in the day you will see that as the water from the fire trucks absorbs into the ground, it softens and you have muddy ruts…

So with that in mind I would have to guess that the dirt around the pentagon is both very dry and packed down pretty hard, most likely from all the construction equipment that had been running all over it before the incident. The grass was then literally stuck between a rock and a hard place, it would provide some lubrication to the aircraft passing over it, and would have just ended up being matted down flat.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
Obviously the damage to the grass is going to depend on how soft the dirt below it is. That is why you can run a lawn tractor over your yard on a normal day and not make ruts, but try it after it rains out and you will have a muddy mess. If you look at the pictures from later in the day you will see that as the water from the fire trucks absorbs into the ground, it softens and you have muddy ruts…

So with that in mind I would have to guess that the dirt around the pentagon is both very dry and packed down pretty hard, most likely from all the construction equipment that had been running all over it before the incident. The grass was then literally stuck between a rock and a hard place, it would provide some lubrication to the aircraft passing over it, and would have just ended up being matted down flat.

reinforced grass? its an interesting theory, i cant see dirt no matter how matted down it is not being disturbed in some way by a Boeing 757,



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Defcon makes some very valid points, and you have to remember that this was not an ordinary plane crash, he would have literally glanced off the lawn. If he had been doing the same manoever in an open space he would have slid for hundreds of yards at such a shallow angle.

When you look at the image used on the (very funny) site:



You will notice the lack of any skidding - this means one of two things:

1) It did slide along and didn't cause significant damage to the grass - proving the point, though not the one the website is trying to.

2) It hit a very steep angle (like verticle) and actually caused the same amount of damage to the ground as was seen to the pentagon wall.

No one is saying the plane hit hard and a lot of reports seem to state that more specifically, an engine struck the helipad.
That lawn is probably a thin, hard layer of topsoil ontop of hardcore. It's a lot tougher than it looks I imagine.
If the plane had plowed into it . on and it looked like that I would probably raise an eyebrow though, but it didn't.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jupiter869
So what's the answer?
People saw the plane hit the "lawn" but why wasn't there any damage to it?




ground effect generates additional lift, so, to stay on deck, angle of attack has to be negative at that speed, which means anyytime you touch the ground, your nose will be forced upwards again, the most important requirement is smoothness and lawn is pretty much optimal, tbh, since it's relatively soft and quite slippery.

see

home.comcast.net...

search for 'ground effect' - this is a 'no-plane' site, btw.


of course, that doesn't explain the lack of burned lawn, does it? you see there's a reason the pentagon thread is 120+ pages long.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Regardless of there being a plane or not, there was a dramatic fireball and substantial damage was sustained, so the lawn not being burnt is effectively a mystery regardless of the cause. It really does not prove anything one way or another.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
These are two of the earliest pictures taken of the pentagon befor the collapse,





Where's the Plane?



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Regardless of there being a plane or not, there was a dramatic fireball and substantial damage was sustained, so the lawn not being burnt is effectively a mystery regardless of the cause. It really does not prove anything one way or another.


The explosion would have followed the forward momentum of the fuel feeding it. It would have started once the wings hit the wall and proceeded forward and, since heat climbs, upward. So the scorching from the initial fireball would mostly be inside the building and up the fascia.



Originally posted by iamian

Where's the Plane?


This was all a lead in to making your own Pentagon thread, that is what I expected. Go to the proper thread, read he 120 or so pages, then ask this in there…

I’ll not contribute to another thread to rehash this crap over again for every new guy out there.


BYE-BYE!!


[edit on 12/11/2005 by defcon5]



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Where is the plane?
Well it obviously went through one of those windows



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
This was all a lead in to making your own Pentagon thread, that is what I expected. Go to the proper thread, read he 120 or so pages, then ask this in there…

I’ll not contribute to another thread to rehash this crap over again for every new guy out there.

BYE-BYE!!
[edit on 12/11/2005 by defcon5]

I'm sorry defcon5, i've obviously caused you an itch, i didn't mean too,
but i still dont believe a plane hit the Pentagon.

Take it easy m8 All the best... ian



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
From the same point of view, the way materials of a 100 tons plane should move and what destruction they should cause in a crash against a building like the pentagon reinforce this impossibility

Yes lets cover the old ground, ground that can withstand a Boing 757 Airoplane.

WHERE'S THE PLANE

Anybody who hasn't investigated this look here

DENY IGNORENCE



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Discussed in other threads, folks. Please use one of those instead of starting new ones.

Topic closed.




top topics



 
0

log in

join